- "the fact that some places of amusement are not taxed while

others, such as cinematographs, theaters, vaudeville

companies, theatrical shows, and boxing exhibitions and other
kinds of amusements or places of amusement are taxed,is not
argument at all against the equality and uniformity of tax
imposition."

There would be discrimination if some boarding stables of the

same class used for the same number of horses were not taxed
or were made to pay less or more than others
From the viewpoint of economics and public policy the taxing
of boarding stables for racehorses to the exclusion of boarding
stables for horses dedicated to other purposes is not
indefensible (not justifiable by argument)

- Owners of boarding stables for race horses and race

horse owners themselves, who in the scheme of shifting
may carry the taxation burden, are a class by themselves
and appropriately taxed where owners of other kinds of
horses are taxed lessor not at all, considering that equity
in taxation is generally conceived in terms of ability to
pay in relation to the benefits received by the taxpayer
and by the public from the business or property taxed

- Race horses are devoted to gambling if legalized, their

owners derive fat income and the public hardly any profit
from horse racing,and this business demands relatively
heavy police supervision

The differentiation against which the plaintiffs complain

conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity and is
not discriminatory within the meaning of the Constitution
The clause of the ordinance taxing or licensing boarding
stables for race horses does not prejudice the plaintiffs in any
material way, and it is well settled that a person who is not
adversely affected by a licensing ordinance may not attack its
validity

Manila Race Horse Trainers Association, Inc. v. Dela Fuente

Facts:
This action was instituted for a declaratory relief by the Manila
Race Horses Trainers Association, Inc., a non-stock corporation,
who allege that they are owners of boarding stables for race
horses and that their rights as such are affected by Ordinance
No. 3065 of the City of Manila approved on July 1, 1947
- AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR LICENSE FEES ON PERSONS
MAINTAINING OR CONDUCTING ANY BOARDING STABLE FOR HORSE
RACES AND/OR HORSE STABLES, OR PLACES WHERE HORSE ARE
KEPT, FED, OR BOARDED FOR OTHERS, FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE,
AND/OR FOR PRIVATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

They made the Mayor of Manila defendant and prayed that said
ordinance be declared invalid as violative of the Philippine
Constitution. The case was submitted on the pleadings, and the
decision was that the ordinance in question "is constitutional
and valid and has been enacted in accordance with the powers
of the Municipal Board granted by the Charter of the City of
Manila"
Issues:
1. WON the ordinance makes an arbitrary classification thus
being violative of the constitution.
2. WON the tax is on race horses, and not on boarding stables.
Held:
1. NO.
In taxing only boarding stables for race horses, the Court does
not believe that the ordinance, makes arbitrary classification
In the case of Eastern Theatrical Co. Inc., vs. Alfonso, it was
said there is equality and uniformity in taxation if all articles
or kinds of property of the same class are taxed at the same
rate

within the territorial jurisdiction of this municipality a tax of 1 centavo

on each gallon of volume capacity
Both taxes are denominated as municipal production tax
Pepsi Cola assailed the validity of the ordinances as it alleged that
they constitute double taxation in 2 instances: a) double taxation
because Ordinance No. 27 covers the same subject matter and impose
practically the same tax rate as with Ordinance No. 23, b) double
taxation because the 2 ordinances impose percentage or specific
taxes
Pepsi Cola also questions the constitutionality of RA 2264 which allows
for the delegation of taxing powers to local govt units; that allowing
local govts to tax companies like Pepsi Cola is confiscatory and
oppressive
The Municipality assailed the arguments presented by Pepsi Cola. It
argued, among others, that only Ordinance No. 27 is being enforced
and that the latter law is an amendment of Ordinance No. 23, hence
there is no double taxation
Issue:
1. WON there is undue delegation of taxing powers.
2. WON there is double taxation and imposition of percentage or
specific taxes.
3. WON the Ordinance in question are unjust and unfair.
Held:
1. No.
There is no undue delegation. The power of taxation is an essential
and inherent attribute of sovereignty, belonging as a matter of right
to every independent govt, without being expressly conferred by the
people
The Constitution even allows such delegation. Legislative powers
may be delegated to local govts in respect of matters of local
concern
- By necessary implication, the legislative power to create political
corporations for purposes of local self- govt carries with it the
power to confer on such local govtal agencies the power to tax
Under the New Constitution, local govts are granted the autonomous
authority to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes
- Sec. 5, Article 11 provides: Each local govt unit shall have the
power to create its sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject
to such limitations as may be provided by law.
- It cannot be said that Sec. 2 of RA No. 2264 emanated from
beyond the sphere of the legislative power to enact and vest in
local govts the power of local taxation
The plenary nature of the taxing power thus delegated would not
suffice to invalidate the said law as confiscatory and oppressive

he may not complain that a licensing ordinance is invalid as

against a class other than that to which he belongs
the plaintiff may contest the validity of the provisions that
injure his interest but not those that do not
2. NO.
The spirit, rather than the letter, of an ordinance determines
the construction

- the court looks less to its words and more to the context,
subject matter, consequence and effect

- what is within the spirit is within the ordinance although it

is not within the letter thereof, while that which is in the
letter, although not within the spirit, is not within the
ordinance.
From the context of the said ordinance, the intent to tax or
license stables and not horses is clearly manifest. The tax is
assessed not on the owners of the horses but on the owners of
the stables
The number of horses is used in the assessment purely as a
method of fixing an equitable and practical distribution of the
burden imposed by the measure

- It is but fair and just that for a boarding stable where only

one horse is maintained proportionately less amount

should be exacted than for a stable where more horses are
kept and from which greater income is derived.

Pepsi Cola Bottling Company vs Municipality of Tauauan

Facts:
Pepsi Cola has a bottling plant in the Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte.
In Sept. 1962, the Municipality approved Ordinance No. 23 which
levies and collects from soft drinks producers and manufacturers a
tax of 1/16 of a centavo for every bottle of soft drink corked
In Dec. 1962, the Municipality also approved Ordinance No. 27 which
levies and collects taxes on soft drinks produced or manufactured

- in line with the constitutional policy of according the widest

possible autonomy to local govts in matters of local taxation, an

aspect that is given expression in the Local Tax Code

Reluctance should not deter compliance with an ordinance such as

Ordinance No. 27 if the purpose of the law to further strengthen
local autonomy were to be realized
Municipalities are empowered to impose, not only municipal license
taxes upon persons engaged in any business or occupation but also
to levy for public purposes, just and uniform taxes

- When it is said that the taxing power may be delegated to

municipalities and the like, it is meant that there may be

delegated such measure of power to impose and collect taxes as
the legislature may deem expedient

- Municipalities may be permitted to tax subjects which for

reasons of public policy the State has not deemed wise to tax for
more general purposes

2. No.
There is no double taxation. Double taxation, in general, is not
forbidden by our fundamental law
- It becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer is taxed twice for
the benefit of the same govtal entity or by the same jurisdiction
for the same purpose, but not in a case where one tax is imposed
by the State and the other by the city or municipality
The 2 ordinances in question are not the same. The difference
between the ordinances clearly lies in the tax rate of the soft drinks
produced:
- in Ordinance No. 23, it was 1/16 of a centavo for every bottle
corked while in Ordinance No. 27, it is 1 centavo on each gallon)
of volume capacity
- The intention of the Municipal Council of Tanauan in enacting
Ordinance No. 27 is thus clear: it was intended as a plain
substitute for the prior Ordinance No. 23, and operates as a
repeal of the latter.
- Only Ordinance No. 27 is being enforced by defendants-appellees
Ordinance 27 is not a percentage or a specific tax
- a municipal ordinance which prescribes a set ratio between the
amount of the tax and the volume of sale of the taxpayer imposes
a sales tax and is null and void for being outside the power of the
municipality to enact

- But the imposition of "a tax of one centavo on each gallon of

volume capacity" on all soft drinks produced or manufactured

under Ordinance No. 27 does not partake of the nature of a
percentage tax on sales. The tax is levied on the produce
(whether sold or not) and not on the sales
It is also not a specific tax because it was not mentioned in the
list of articles which can be taxed

3. No.
an increase in the tax alone would not support the claim that the tax
is oppressive, unjust and confiscatory
municipal corporations are allowed much discretion in determining
the rates of imposable taxes

 Ordinance was passed by the Municipal Board of MNL by

virtue of its express legislative power to tax, fix the license
fee and regulate the business of theaters, cinematographs
and further to fix the location of and to tax, fix the license
fee for and regulate the business of theatrical performances
public exhibition circus and other performances and places
of amusement
2. NO.
The conflict pointed out by the petitioners is imaginary
Both provisions of law may stand together and be enforced
at the same time without any incompatibility among
themselves
Graduated tax on admission tickets to theaters and other
places of amusement imposed by the NIRC is collected by
and for the purposes of the National govt, whereas,
Ordinance No. 2958 imposes and requires the collection of
a similar tax by and for the purposes of the govt of the City
of MNL, and there is no case of double taxation
3. NO.
Equality and uniformity of taxation means that all taxable
articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed
at the same rate
The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and
natural classifications for purposes of taxation. Petitioners
cannot point out what places of amusement do not
constitute a class by themselves and which can be confused
with those not included in the ordinance

The fact that copra is not mentioned in the aforementioned

Sec. does not mean the copra is excluded, because oil is in
the enumeration and the main component ingredient or
constituent part of copra, which is the dried meat of the
coconut, is oil.
The city of Cebu has the power to tax, fix the license fee
for, regulate the business and fix the location of other
establishments likely to endanger the public safety or give
rise to conflagrations or explosions.
There is no question that under its charter, the City of
Cebu may tax or impose a license fee on any person, firm
or corporation engaged in the business of buying and
selling the storing copra in a warehouse located in the city,
oil being the main component ingredient of copra, house
used for keeping or storing copra is an establishment likely
to endanger the public safety or likely to give rise to
conflagrations or explosions or explosions
The tax or license fee in question is not specific because it
does not subject directly the produce or goods to tax but
indirectly as an incident to, or in connection with, the
business to be taxed. It is a tax on the business of buying
and selling or storing copra

A P0.05 tax or license fee for 100kg of fraction thereof per

month is not arbitrary but reasonable
The fact that the price of copra has been steadily going
down, whereas that of taxes are going up, does not render
the tax arbitrary
The tax or license fee provided for in the ordinances in
question based on the weight regardless of value is what
makes the tax or fee uniform

Uy Matiao and Co., Inc. v City of Cebu

Facts:
Uy Matiao and Co., a domestic corporation, paid under protest
the fees for the storage in its warehouse in the City of Cebu of
copra and/or hemp and/or for engaging in buying and/or
selling copra and/or hemp in the said City provided for in
ordinance no. 38 of the City of Cebu
The plaintiff seeks to recover in this action after a demand for
refund had been refused by the corresponding City authorities
CFI of Cebu rendered judgment holding Ordinance No. 38,
series of 1946, and No. 46. series of 1947, null and void
Issue: WON the City of Cebu is authorized under its charter
(Com. Act No. 58) to impose and collect the tax or license free
provided in the ordinances in question
Held: YES.
Sec. 17, Commonwealth Act No. 58, provides that the
Municipal Board has the power to:
- To tax, fix the license free for, regulate the business, and fix the
location of match factories, blacksmith shops, foundries, steam
boilers lumberyard, the storage and sale of gunpowder, tar, pitch,
resin, coal, oil, gasoline, benzine, turpentine, hemp, cotton,
nitroglycerine, petroleum, or any of the products thereof and of all
other highly combustible or explosive materials, and other
establishment likely to endanger the public safety or give rise to
conflagrations or explosions, and subject to the provisions of
ordinances issued by the PH Health Service in accordance with law

The tax or license fee does not deprive the owner of the
copra and of the warehouse of this property without due
process of law, because it is reasonable tax or fee and it
does not deprive the dealer of his copra and the owner of

the warehouse where it is kept of his property

It is also not a tax on export because it is imposed not only
upon copra to be exported but also upon copra sold and to
used for domestic purposes, if stored in any warehouse in
the City of Cebu and the weight thereof is 100kg or more
The tax or license fee in question is not among those
prohibited or beyond the power of the municipal councils
and municipal districts council to impose, as provided for
in Sec. 3, Commonwealth Act No. 472.
- Com. Act No. 472 applies only to municipal council and
municipal district council and not to cities like the City
of Cebu which has it own charter

4. WON the Court can inquire into the wisdom of the franchise.
5. WON the respondent taxpayer is liable for the fixed and
deficiency percentage taxes in the period before the approval
of its municipal franchises.
Ruling:
1. No.
The private respondent's original franchises did not contain
the proviso that the tax provided therein "shall be in lieu of
all taxes;" moreover, the franchises contained a reservation
clause that they shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or
repeal
- even in the absence of such clause, the power of the
Legislature to alter, amend, or repeal any franchise is
always deemed reserved
By virtue of RA No. 3843, the private respondent is liable to
pay only the 2% franchise tax, effective from the date the
original municipal franchise was granted
2. No.
A tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and
effect in every place where the subject of it is found.
Uniformity means that all property belonging to the same
class shall be taxed alike. The legislature has the inherent
power not only to select the subjects of taxation but to grant
exemptions
Tax exemptions have never been deemed violative of the
equal protection clause. Herein, the 5% franchise tax rate
provided in Sec. 259 of the Tax Code was never intended to
have universal application

Commissioner v Lingayen Gulf Electric (1988)

Facts:
Lingayen Gulf Electric Power operates an electric power plant
serving the municipalities of Lingayen and Binmaley,
Pangasinan, pursuant to municipal franchise granted it by the
respective municipal councils.
The franchises provided that the grantee shall pay quarterly to
the provincial treasury of Pangasinan 1% of the gross earnings
obtained through the privilege for the first 20 years (from
1946) and 2% during the remaining 15 years of the life of the
franchise.
In 1955, the BIR assessed and demanded against the company
deficiency franchise taxes and surcharges from the years 1946
to 1954 applying the franchise tax rate of 5% on gross receipts
from 1948 to 1954. The company asked for a reinvestigation,
which was denied.
CTA, however, ruled for Lingayen. Hence, this petition.
Issues:
1. WON the 5% franchise tax prescribed in Sec. 259 of the
NIRC assessed against the private respondent on its gross
receipts realized before the effectivity of RA No. 3843 is
collectible.
2. WON Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 3843 is unconstitutional for being
violative of the "uniformity and equality of taxation" clause of
the Constitution.
3. If the abovementioned Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 3843 is valid,
whether or not it could be given retroactive effect so as to
render uncollectible the taxes in question which were
assessed before its enactment.

 The private respondent should no longer be made to pay for

the deficiency tax in the amount of P3,025.98 for the period
from Jan. 1, 1946 to Feb. 29, 1948

Sec. 259 expressly allows the payment of taxes at rates

lower than 5% when the charter granting the franchise
precludes the imposition of a higher tax.
RA 3843, the law granting the franchise, did not only fix and
specify a franchise tax of 2% on its gross receipts but made it
in lieu of any and all taxes, all laws to the contrary
notwithstanding. Thus, it only effected the transfer of a
taxable property from one class to another
3. Yes.
Act No. 3843 provides that "effective ... upon the date the
original franchise was granted, no other tax and/or
licenses other than the franchise tax of 2 per centum on the
gross receipts ... shall be collected, any provision to the
contrary notwithstanding."
- it therefore specifically provided for the retroactive effect
of the law
4. No.
The Court does not have the authority to inquire into the
wisdom of the Act
Charters or special laws granted and enacted by the
legislature are in the nature of private contracts. They do not
constitute a part of the machinery of the general govt. Also,
the Court ought not to disturb the ruling of the CTA on
the constitutionality of the law in question
5. No.
During the period covered by the instant case, that is from
Jan. 1, 1946 to Dec. 31, 1961, the private respondent paid
the amount of P34,184.36, which was very much more than
the amount rightfully due from it

local govts to which said theory does not apply in

respect of matters of local concern

Issue: WON American Bible Society is liable to pay sales tax for
the distribution and sale of bibles.
Ruling: NO.
Under Sec. 1 of Ordinance 3000, one of the ordinance s in
question, a person or entity engaged in any of the business,
trades or occupation enumerated under Sec. 3 must obtain a
Mayors permit and license from the City Treasurer. American
Bible Societys business is not among those enumerated
It is of general application and not particularly directed
against institutions like the plaintiff, and it does not contain
any provisions whatever prescribing religious censorship
nor restraining the free exercise and enjoyment of any
religious profession.
However, item 79 of Sec. 3 of the Ordinance provides that all
other businesses, trade or occupation not mentioned, except
those upon which the City is not empowered to license or to
tax P5.00
Therefore, the necessity of the permit is made to depend
upon the power of the City to license or tax said business,
trade or occupation.
2 provisions of law that may have bearing on this case:
A. Chapter 60 of the Revised Administrative Code, the
Municipal Board of the City of MNL is empowered to tax
and fix the license fees on retail dealers engaged in the
sale of books
B. Sec. 18(o) of RA 409: to tax and fix the license fee on
dealers in general merchandise, including importers and
indentors, except those dealers who may be expressly
subject to the payment of some other municipal tax.
Further, Dealers in general merchandise shall be
classified as (a) wholesale dealers and (b) retail dealers.
For purposes of the tax on retail dealers, general
merchandise shall be classified into four main classes:
namely

American Bible Society vs. City of Manila

Facts:
American Bible Society is a foreign, non-stock, non-profit,
religious, missionary corporation duly registered and doing
business in the PH through its PH agency established in
Manila in Nov 1898
City of MNL is a municipal corporation with powers that are
to be exercised in conformity with the provisions of RA No.
409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of MNL
American Bible Society has been distributing and selling
bibles and/or gospel portions throughout the PH and
translating the same into several PH dialects
City Treasurer of MNL informed American Bible Society that
it was violating several Ordinances for operating without the
necessary permit and license, thereby requiring the
corporation to secure the permit and license fees covering
the period from 4Q 1945-2Q 1953
To avoid closing of its business, American Bible Society paid
the City of MNL its permit and license fees under protest
American Bible filed a complaint, questioning the
constitutionality and legality of the Ordinances 2529 and
3000, and prayed for a refund of the payment made to the
City of MNL. They contended:
a. They had been in the PH since 1899 and were not
required to pay
any license fee or sales tax
b. it never made any profit from the sale of its bibles
c. In order to maintain its operating costs, it obtains
substantial remittances
from its NY office and
voluntary contributions and gifts from certain
churches
City of MNL prayed that the complaint be dismissed,
reiterating the constitutionality of the Ordinances in question
Trial Court dismissed the complaint
American Bible Society appealed to the Court of Appeals

 Further, the case also mentioned that the power to tax the
exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its
enjoyment. Those who can tax the exercise of this religious
practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the
resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax
the privilege of engaging in this form of missionary
evangelism can close all its doors to all those who do not
have a full purse
Under Sec. 27(e) of Commonwealth Act No. 466 or the NIRC:
Corporations or associations organized and operated
exclusively for religious, charitable, . . . or educational
purposes, . . .: Provided, however, That the income of
whatever kind and character from any of its properties, real
or personal, or from any activity conducted for profit,
regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be
liable to the tax imposed under this Code shall not be taxed
The price asked for the bibles and other religious pamphlets
was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost
of the same but this cannot mean that American Bible Society
was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said
"merchandise" for profit
The court believes that the provisions of City of MNL
Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to
appellant, for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and
enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as
its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.
Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional,
even if applied to plaintiff Society but it is also inapplicable to
said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff.
Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing
considerations, We hereby reverse the decision appealed
from, sentencing defendant return to plaintiff the sum of
P5,891.45 unduly collected from it

(1) luxury articles,

(2) semi-luxury articles,
(3) essential commodities
(4) miscellaneous articles.
A separate license shall be prescribed for each class but
where commodities of different classes are sold in the
same establishment, it shall not be compulsory for the
owner to secure more than one license if he pays the
higher or highest rate of tax prescribed by ordinance.
Wholesale dealers shall pay the license tax as such, as
may be provided by ordinance
Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as amended, are to be
considered as still in full force and effect uninterruptedly up
to the present
Often the legislature, instead of simply amending the preexisting statute, will repeal the old statute in its entirety
and by the same enactment re-enact all or certain portions
of the preexisting law
The court holds that the questioned ordinances of the City
of MNL are still in force and effect
The only difference between the 2 provisions is the limitation
as to the amount of tax or license fee that a retail dealer has
to pay per annum
As held in Murdock v Pennsylvania, The power to impose a
license tax on the exercise of these freedoms provided for in
the Bill of Rights, is indeed as potent as the power of
censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. It is
not a nominal fee imposed as a regulatory measure to defray
the expenses of policing the activities in question. It is in no
way apportioned. It is flat license tax levied and collected as a
condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is
guaranteed by the constitutional liberties of press and
religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That
is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil
of this flat license tax.

 Reasonable emphasis has always been made that the

exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main
purposes.
The use of the school building or lot for commercial
purposes is neither contemplated by law, nor by
jurisprudence. The use of the 2nd floor of the main building
in the case at bar for residential purposes of the Director
and his family, may find justification under the concept of
incidental use, which is complimentary to the main or
primary purposeeducational, the lease of the first floor
thereof to the Northern Marketing Corp. cannot by any
stretch of the imagination be considered incidental to the
purpose of education.
The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the
property for purposes mentioned in the Constitution.
In YMCA of MNL vs. CIR, this Court ruled that while it may
be true that the YMCA keeps a lodging and a boarding house
and maintains a restaurant for its members, still these do not
constitute business in the ordinary acceptance of the word,
but an institution used exclusively for religious, charitable
and educational purposes, and as such, it is entitled to be
exempted from taxation
In Bishop of Nueva Segovia v. Provincial Board of Ilocos
Norte, this Court included in the exemption a vegetable
garden in an adjacent lot and another lot formerly used as a
cemetery. It was clarified that the term "used exclusively"
considers incidental use also. Thus, the exemption from
payment of land tax in favor of the convent includes, not only
the land actually occupied by the building but also the
adjacent garden devoted to the incidental use of the parish
priest. The lot which is not used for commercial purposes but
serves solely as a sort of lodging place, also qualifies for
exemption because this constitutes incidental use in religious
functions.

Abra Valley College v Aquino

Facts:
Petitioner, an educational corporation and institution of
higher learning duly incorporated with the S EC in 1948, filed
a complaint to annul and declare void the Notice of Seizure
and the Notice of Sale of its lot and building located at
Bangued, Abra, for non-payment of real estate taxes and
penalties amounting to P5,140.31.
- Said Notice of Seizure by respondents Municipal
Treasurer and Provincial Treasurer, defendants below, was
issued for the satisfaction of the said taxes thereon.
The parties entered into a stipulation of facts adopted and
embodied by the trial court in its questioned decision. The
trial court ruled for the govt, holding that the second floor of
the building is being used by the director for residential
purposes and that the ground floor used and rented by
Northern Marketing Corp., a commercial establishment, and
thus the property is not being used exclusively for
educational purposes.
Instead of perfecting an appeal, petitioner availed of the
instant petition for review on certiorari with prayer for
preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court, by filing
said petition on 17 Aug. 1974
Issue: WON the lot and building are used exclusively for
educational purposes.
Held: NO.
Sec. 22, paragraph 3, Article 6, of the then 1935 PH
Constitution, expressly grants exemption from realty taxes
for cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or
educational purposes.

- Since only a portion is used for purposes of commerce, it is

only fair that half of the assessed tax be returned to the
school involved
The decision of the CFI Abra (Branch I) is affirmed subject to
the modification that half of the assessed tax be returned to
the petitioner.

Under the 1935 Constitution, the trial court correctly arrived

at the conclusion that the school building as well as the lot
where it is built, should be taxed, not because the 2nd floor of
the same is being used by the Director and his family for
residential purposes, but because the 1st floor thereof is
being used for commercial purposes